Comments on: Are Canadians in conflict about abortion? Or merely conflicted?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/
Canada's national weekly current affairs magazineTue, 03 Mar 2015 22:21:34 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2By: Tyler Ryleyhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020899
Tyler RyleyThu, 14 Mar 2013 21:22:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020899Things get mucky when we start legislating faith-based morals…
]]>By: Jim__Rhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020897
Jim__RMon, 10 Dec 2012 07:23:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020897I want Canada to be like other liberal democracies because IMO they have struck the right balance in the abortion issue. Whether that would mean or more less abortions as a result, is a) debatable, and b) not *my* concern.

As for passing judgment on people, I’ll leave that to others.

]]>By: Serendipity Zenhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020895
Serendipity ZenMon, 10 Dec 2012 06:21:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020895Your concern is not with the rate of abortions? You just want to be like other countries even if that means women get more abortions?

Personally, my only concern is the abortion rate, the lower the better. I want to reduce the number of abortions, not pass judgement on people.

]]>By: Serendipity Zenhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020893
Serendipity ZenMon, 10 Dec 2012 06:14:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020893I think a fairer question would be “Should limitations or restrictions on abortion be through law-making or should the medical profession continue determining when the procedure is or isn’t appropriate for a particular patient based on that patient’s health?

Another question could be, “Do you think doctors in Canada are aborting healthy fetuses that could have been delivered live?”

]]>By: Serendipity Zenhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020891
Serendipity ZenMon, 10 Dec 2012 05:56:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020891My goodness, “she shouted”! Did everyone turn around and stare at her? I mean, someone shouting “that’s infanticide!” in public place would certainly get my attention. I would also like to know how to nod loudly as opposed to “nodding quietly”.

All the women (and would guess most men) I know are aware that there are no restrictions on abortion in Canada. It’s certainly been in the news often enough. I have pretty ordinary friends that just watch the 6 o’clock news or read the paper and we don’t sit around talking politics or anything. I would think it is common knowledge to anyone who has even a rudimentary familiarity with the major political hot topics.

When I hear that a doctor aborted a viable baby when it only have a foot left in the birth canal we can talk about a law against it. Until then, I’m not worried.

Take the brainless fetus example: almost certainly the lack of brain would be determinable well before, say, week 20, which in some countries (like Britain) is the cut-off for abortion on demand. So in that case the abortion could happen before the cut-off and the brainless fetus is not brought to term (assuming it could even survive a full term pregnancy without a brain). And even if it was determined after the cut-off that the fetus had no brain, there would be a good chance that abortion would still be permitted due to the extenuating circumstances.

The argument is not between abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy vs a total prohibition of abortion. It’s about determining whether there should be a reasonable cut-off for abortion on demand, and the rules for permitting abortion after that cut-off has been reached.

I would also argue that calling abortion a *purely* medical decision does not make it so. To argue that one minute before birth the fetus has absolutely no rights vs one minute after birth it has full rights is to deny the fact that there was no meaningful change in the physical status of the fetus/baby over that 120 seconds.

]]>By: Serendipity Zenhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020887
Serendipity ZenMon, 10 Dec 2012 05:37:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020887I don’t know any women using abortion as their birth control method. Do you have any statistics to back up your claim?

Late term abortions are a medical decision taken between a woman and her doctor that is based on complex health factors that only a doctor can take into account, not lesgislators.

]]>By: Serendipity Zenhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020885
Serendipity ZenMon, 10 Dec 2012 05:32:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020885I have yet to hear of a single late-term abortion in Canada that was not justifiable based the medical condition of both the mother and the fetus.

Medical professionals are not monsters. A late term abortion is performed in hospital with nurses present etc. Such a decision wouldn’t even be made by one doctor. Multiple specialists would be involved in determining the best course of treatment.

First show me a single example of a medically inappropriate late-term abortion in Canada. If it were happening, it wouldn’t take long before women would be taking doctors to court saying they were depressed or something and their doctor killed their perfectly viable healthy baby for no reason. Malpractice suits would abound.

Anti-abortionists set up false scenarios in order to justify infringing on a woman’s right to make own health decisions with her doctors.

]]>By: Serendipity Zenhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020883
Serendipity ZenMon, 10 Dec 2012 05:12:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020883Canada is ahead of the pack not behind it.
No restrictions whatsoever on abortion because it is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor.

A fetus gains rights after it exists the mother’s body. Whether or not you call a “human being” or not is immaterial. For example, there are fetus’ that have no brain. We can force women to bear them to term only to die in suffering after birth, or we can leave such decisions up to doctors and their patients. For example, we do not pass laws on when someone is entitled to a hip replacement. It is a medical decision.

]]>By: s_c_fhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020881
s_c_fTue, 20 Nov 2012 04:38:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020881Are you seriously trying to claim that you represent reasonable people? LOL
]]>By: Christina Delilah Isakittyhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020879
Christina Delilah IsakittyTue, 20 Nov 2012 03:37:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020879The amount of abortions that happen after that point are such a tiny fragment of the abortions performed though.

I am much more interested in approaching this from a societal standpoint rather than a legal standpoint, simply because the legal standpoint only restricts the legality of it, and does nothing to address the need for it. This means that people will still attempt abortions via illegal means, and with greater risks.

That’s why I think Canada has the right approach, because legally, people (women, in this case) should have the ability to choose. We as a society, however, should be working together to ensure that the majority of them never have to face that choice through preventative measures, such as combatting poverty, and promoting contraceptive use, as well as ensuring that it is affordable and within the reach of those who require it.

Just my take on the issue.

]]>By: Jim__Rhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020877
Jim__RTue, 20 Nov 2012 03:24:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020877My concern is not with rates.
I just find it odd that:

1) Canada, the quintessential middle-of-the-road country, is so out of step with the rest of the liberal democracies (Ireland excepted) on this.

2) Due to a lack of any restrictions, it is theoretically legal to abort a 8 month 3 week old fetus.

As I said in earlier posts, a compromise position which permits abortion on demand for the first X weeks (where X is probably between 12 and 20), and imposes restrictions thereafter, makes sense to me, as it does to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, England, the US, etc.

YMMV

]]>By: Christina Delilah Isakittyhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020875
Christina Delilah IsakittyTue, 20 Nov 2012 03:06:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020875Why else would you impose restrictions, unless you wanted to curb abortion rates?
]]>By: Jim__Rhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020873
Jim__RTue, 20 Nov 2012 02:32:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020873Which is a different topic.
]]>By: Christina Delilah Isakittyhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020871
Christina Delilah IsakittyTue, 20 Nov 2012 02:13:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020871And look at all those abortions happening in Canada! Oh wait, we actually have a really low rate of abortions, and our abortions tend to occur weeks earlier, as compared to America.
]]>By: Miss Kittyhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020869
Miss KittyMon, 19 Nov 2012 18:56:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020869I wonder if these pro-abortion people ever think about the fact that their mother could have taken away their right to exist. That’s right, you wouldn’t be here typing about how you support the deaths of fetuses (a fetus means baby in Latin BTW). With late-term abortions the baby is dragged out of the womb, then a hole is drilled into the back of their skulls. After that, the “doctor” suctions out the child’s brain until it’s skull collapses. Another way it’s done is with a tool that clips off body parts and pulls them out until there’s nothing left but a dismembered baby. Don’t believe me? Research it and stop denying the truth. Seriously, anyone who can support this barbarism have to be messed in the head. There needs to be a time limit, like 3 months. That’s plenty of time to decide, but better yet is to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. I’m a feminist and do believe in a woman’s right to her own body, but she needs to take responsibility too. There are too many women using abortion as birth control at the tax payer’s expense. The man who got her pregnant should have to pay for it. It takes two to tangle. The guy needs to take 50% of the responsibility, he should have kept it in his pants also.
]]>By: AbortionSurvivorhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020867
AbortionSurvivorMon, 19 Nov 2012 17:09:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020867Pro-abortion is what you got from that? Eugenics? Hilarious. You really believe that if we as a species continue to breed at this exponential pace there will be no eventual consequence? There are millions of unwanted children in this world who need someone to love them more than anything – and you have the moral and intellectual stamina to tell women across the country that they should not have the option to terminate a pregnancy? How many adopted children in your household?

In terms of the governments’ role in all of this – laws exist to prevent the dumb and malicious from doing dumb and malicious things. That being said, who really cares if a law does exist that prevents late-term abortions? Short of a severe health problem for fetus or mother, if a carrying woman cannot come to terms with the pregnancy inside of 6 months, there are other issue afoot -

I have to at least praise you for not bringing religion into the debate – because, well…that’s for a whole other thread I’m sure…

Time to grow-up lady. Watch a Carl Sagen or Stephen Hawlking video and try to wrap your head around the idea that we are a cosmic coincidence who needs to focus on how to survive – I understand that the idea of a crushed fetal skull is disturbing – but I’m glad my doctor doen’t make his decisions based on the ‘yuck’ factor of the procedure.

And thank-you for referencing me alongside the great Margaret Sanger – it’s not everyday I’m associated with someone with such great logic and foresight…

]]>By: EmilyOnehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020865
EmilyOneMon, 19 Nov 2012 14:34:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020865We don’t have late term abortions here, not because we refuse, but because medical care is free so most women have good prenatal care. That way everyone knows if the baby is normal and healthy at the earliest stages.

Now occasionally a serious problem only becomes apparent in the final trimester….brains formed outside the body, or the foetus has died, and in situations like that the US has more specialists and facilities so they go there.

The point is that it’s a medical decision…not one made by your religion.

]]>By: Gaunilonhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020863
GaunilonMon, 19 Nov 2012 05:20:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020863“In 100 or 1000 years, whether or not you and Jesus like it, there will be a forced thinning of the herd.”

It’s always struck me as interesting that the pro-abortion movement is and has always been closely tied to the concept of eugenics, from Margaret Sanger to Exhibit A here. Repulsive, but interesting.

]]>By: Gaunilonhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020861
GaunilonMon, 19 Nov 2012 05:10:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020861Is it really this hard to comprehend. The claim was made that late-term abortions are never done in Canada. Every literate person on the thread can now see that this is not true. It’s even possible that you and Emily now see this.

“Obviously as a fetus matures it becomes closer to being human and the ethical ramifications become more serious, it doesn’t mean it’s a person.”

You’re seriously going to insist that a late-term fetus isn’t human. Remarkable. You may not be aware of this, but third-trimester fetuses are regularly delivered as premature babies. Do you think they magically turn into humans as they transit the birth canal? Yet it’s perfectly legal to kill them until they do.

“We all know this debate has nothing to do with life any (sic) everything to do with control. It’s time to get over yourself and find a real issue to care about.”

So, the issue Canadians are clearly divided on and which we’ve been debating here for several posts isn’t “a real issue”. And anyone who thinks it might be wrong to kill unborn children is motivated by “nothing to do with life any (sic) everything to do with control.” Where I come from, this form of response is a clear sign of weakness. Dismissing the argument doesn’t change the fact that you can’t seem to address it directly.

]]>By: AbortionSurvivorhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020859
AbortionSurvivorMon, 19 Nov 2012 03:17:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020859In 100 or 1000 years, whether or not you and Jesus like it, there will be a forced thinning of the herd.
]]>By: GFMDhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020857
GFMDSun, 18 Nov 2012 22:27:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020857you keep typing as if reasonable people care what you think and have not heard and rejected it many years previously.
]]>By: Jakehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020855
JakeSun, 18 Nov 2012 10:11:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020855I’m not your “friend,” I’m a stranger on the internet who thinks your a moron. These aren’t guidelines, it’s a report from a committee with suggestions, there’s no sign whether or not these guidelines were adopted.

So let me get your argument straight, since there are no laws, you try to imply that the situation is out of control, vicious late-term abortions are rampant in Canada, when it’s proven that this isn’t the case you try and turn it around.

Obviously as a fetus matures it becomes closer to being human and the ethical ramifications become more serious, it doesn’t mean it’s a person.

There are children in this country who go to bed hungry every night. We all know this debate has nothing to do with life any everything to do with control. It’s time to get over yourself and find a real issue to care about.

]]>By: EmilyOnehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020845
EmilyOneSun, 18 Nov 2012 04:03:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020845Stop lying please.
]]>By: EmilyOnehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020843
EmilyOneSun, 18 Nov 2012 04:02:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020843Basically what you’re saying is that females are too stupid to make their own decisions. So men have to do it for them

And no, you’ve never met any abortion survivors. There is no such thing.

They make big bucks out of your gullibilty though

]]>By: Gaunilonhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020841
GaunilonSun, 18 Nov 2012 03:17:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020841“Should you be able to force your opinion on the bodies of those who disagree, using force if necessary?”

The state routinely forces parents not to murder their children. The state also routinely forces deadbeat dads to support their children, using force if necessary. And rightly so, because the life of a child is not a matter of “opinion”.

]]>By: Gaunilonhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020839
GaunilonSun, 18 Nov 2012 03:15:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020839“…. all of whom know that an unborn baby is still a baby and deserves protection.”

I’d like to think that too, but as this thread demonstrates, there are many who still don’t know this (or if they do, won’t acknowledge it for reasons I’d prefer not to know). The Canadian public is a pretty mixed bag when it comes to concern for the lives of others.

]]>By: Gaunilonhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020837
GaunilonSun, 18 Nov 2012 03:11:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020837You’re right. Based on past experience, why did I even bother. We’re talking about children in the last month of pregnancy having their heads crushed, and because your pride is slightly piqued you’ve decided that it’s beyond you to discuss the issue further. How noble you are.

Thankfully, there are others with whom reason works notably better. In 100 years, Canadians will be astonished and disgusted that citizens were so callous as to support the murder of unborn children.

]]>By: 2Jennhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020835
2JennSun, 18 Nov 2012 00:48:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020835This is what you come back at me with? You missed a fantastic opportunity. I won’t give you another. In fact, you have proved to me that there is little point in trying reason to come to some kind of agreement.
]]>By: Gaunilonhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020833
GaunilonSat, 17 Nov 2012 23:57:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020833“A woman’s right to her own body is absolute and indivisible. Not open for debate or wiggle room as far as I’m concerned.”

Unless, of course, the woman in question is a young girl in utero. In that case she has no right to her own body, and can be ripped apart by a suction machine if her mother decides to pursue that option. How principled.

“A fetus that is 8 months 3 weeks old, if removed from a woman’s body, is very likely viable and so could/would be considered “born” rather than “aborted”.

Yes, except that an abortion is different from an induction. In an abortion, the goal is to kill the baby. In an induction the goal is to induce birth, after which the baby could be given up for adoption if so desired by the mother. To ensure that the baby dies during a late-term abortion, the skull is typically crushed (which also makes it easier to remove the body through the birth canal).

“When it is a late-term pregnancy, and the fetus is viable, the goal would have moved, right?”

Wrong. Again, the goal in an abortion is to kill the child. An abortion in which the baby is born but survives is considered a botched abortion – I’ve met several people who survived an attempted abortion.

]]>By: Gaunilonhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020831
GaunilonSat, 17 Nov 2012 23:47:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020831Friend, it so happens that I do read French. It also happens that you’ve made my point for me, albeit in in self-contradictory fashion.

The report gives guidelines under which third-trimester abortions are to be conducted at St. Justine’s. As you point out, the conclusion is that they are to be reserved for cases involving serious fetal defects…but that in these cases they can be performed at St. Justine’s. In other words, late term abortions are performed at St. Justine’s. Which is in Canada. QED.

Now, since we all agree that late-term abortions are performed in Canada under certain circumstances, the question becomes this: why is it such a big deal? If the fetus isn’t a child, why should the hospital have the right to demand that the mother wait between consultations and have a doctor evaluate her level of distress, etc.? What right does a doctor have to obstruct the woman’s demand for an abortion?

Of course, if the reason for all this caution, reluctance, and triple-layered consultation is because the fetus is in fact not just a piece of the woman’s body, but a child, then I ask you: why is it ok to kill this child with congenital defects when it would be reprehensible to do so after they’re born?

According to the document, the Hospital St-Justine (a children’s hospital) will provide abortions for any reason up to 20 weeks, after which patients will be directed to another clinic in Quebec, some of which provide abortions (for any reason) up to 22 weeks. If it is after 22 weeks, the patient will be directed to the American states of Kansas or New York, which provide later term abortions.

In fact, the document quotes the Quebec College of Physicians and Surgeons guidelines which say that interruptions of pregnancy after 23 weeks are rare and are reserved only for cases serious birth defects or in exceptional medical situations.

The document’s recommendations look into whether it is ethical to interrupt a pregnancy for birth defects if the fetus is still viable and concludes that, in these case, third term abortions are only acceptable (and can be conducted at the hospital) if there is a strong possibility that the that baby will be born with serious incurable birth defects. It also recommends that a woman (or couple) who is considering a late-term abortion for this reason meet with medical specialists, have all the information about the options and the fetus’ medical situation, meet with the obstetrician twice and wait at least 48 hours after the second consultation to consider the decision. It also suggests that the doctor should evaluate the level of distress being experienced by the woman (or couple) and provide her with the different options for support: social worker, psychologist, psychiatrist or pastoral.

If anything, this document shows that just because something is legal doesn’t mean that doctors will do it. Clearly the medical community takes their responsibilities and ethics very seriously.

I actually feel much better about the current situation in Canada after reading this. Thanks Gaunilon for proving the opposite of your point!

]]>By: EmilyOnehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020827
EmilyOneSat, 17 Nov 2012 21:07:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020827Yes, we practice infanticide when we go to war.
]]>By: harebellhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020825
harebellSat, 17 Nov 2012 20:32:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020825Indeed it does.
But those are hang overs from a more authoritarian and patronising era. The trend,until Harper and his puppets, has been towards greater individual freedom, Hence the decriminalisation and legalisation of homosexuality. The worm is turning on marijuana, selling one`s body for sex in a safe environment etc.
Centuries of religious Conservative rule takes time to overcome, but we are getting there despite the fundies in power at the moment.
]]>By: harebellhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020823
harebellSat, 17 Nov 2012 20:28:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020823Indeed
An infant has been born, until the point that it is out of the mother it`s a foetus.
]]>By: Jim__Rhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/are-we-in-conflict-about-abortion-or-merely-conflicted/#comment-1020821
Jim__RSat, 17 Nov 2012 19:18:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=315852#comment-1020821The state:

- makes it illegal to, for example, smoke marijuana

- used to make it illegal to sell/rent one’s body for sex

- presently makes it illegal to sell/rent ones body for sex in a safe environment

- has in the past conscripted people to fight in wars

- reserves the right, unless I’m mistaken, to conscript people to fight in wars

- makes it illegal to sell, for example, one’s kidney

So the state does indeed have the right, whether you or I agree with it in any particular instance, to force its opinion on the bodies of those who disagree.